From: flick harrison (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Aug 02 2007 - 09:24:58 PDT
The Taliban made all filmmaking illegal! You New Yorkers should
consider yourselves lucky! HA HA!
On 1-Aug-07, at 6:45 PM, Jim Carlile wrote:
> --Indeed they are loosening up. Prior to these rules, cops could
> throw you out from anywhere. It was completely arbitrary.
If NYPD have been harrassing filmmakers without legal power to do so,
boo to them. Giving them legal power to do what they had already
been doing arbitrarily is hardly a solution.
> --You guys have a weird idea about L.A. It's hardly "sterile and
> over-regulated." Regardless, every place has filming permit rules.
> What's interesting about the NY proposal is that you do NOT need to
> get a group filming permit for limited times. That is an EXTREMELY
> good deal compared with anywhere else I've heard of.
Filmmaking is a first-amendment protected right. Sidewalk art
vendors have already been exempted from permit rules for just that
reason. Even if these rules pass, they are unconstitutional and
therefore could crumble if folks stick together. That's why
constitutions are higher than city bylaws.
I helped hook up the Roadance Film Festival with the ACLU when Park
City (Sundance) tried to ban anyone showing films from a moving
vehicle. The ACLU was helping an animal-rights group knock down
these laws across Utah. Park City actually withdrew their
legislation in the face of the ACLU challenge.
Blocking the sidewalk should be illegal. Any type of activity that
doesn't block the sidewalk shouldn't be illegal. The end. Why bring
filming into it?
> --You can still do all that stuff. In fact, now you can do it with
> impunity. A half-hour is a good amount of time for a crew to film
> without having to get a permit. Try that anywhere else.
Right. An indie news crew waiting outside the permit office, for
instance, to interview angry filmmakers who were turned down from a
permit because they didn't have enough insurance? Half an hour
maximum. What are the odds of that news crew getting a permit? We
want a permit to stand outside this building and drum up opposition
to your rules, interviewing each angry person that you turn down.
*And* we don't have insurance.
That kind of free-speech example is what makes these rules nonsense.
> --That's way overwrought. These rules will not eliminate street
> filming. If anything, they will force cops to keep a 'hands-off'
> policy for limited times. That's not the case right now.
In my experience, cops can push anyone around who isn't carrying a
photocopy of the court decision relating to their rights being
particularly infringed at that moment and / or talks like a lawyer.
See what happens if you don't have a permit and some shopkeeper calls
in a complaint the second you whip out a camera. I imagine the cops
will arrive and find some reason to move you along, 30 minutes or no.
> A good point is made about protest filming. And the insurance
> requirements for +30 minute shoots are onerous. But the permits are
Free if you qualify.
Maybe they should require a city permit to post to the frameworks list?
> I think eliminating the liability insurance for non-commercial
> filming is a good idea.
What's commercial filmmaking? Youtube is commercial.
* FLICK's WEBSITE:
* BLOG / NEWS:
> Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.